From 637f769a0a32ab4df1fd677b2279d2364d004cf7 2020-07-06 02:48:53 From: Vladimir Bejdo Date: 2020-07-06 02:48:53 Subject: [PATCH] Continued making minor edits until I.5.2.; also removed a partially duplicated/incomplete paragraph for which there already existed a full replacement, I.5.1.2. --- diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex index fd2552f4d1cca98df9dd00c9549ca9653dd41384..876b5e0a6858e403838a5891e442e40947f8d105 100644 --- a/gpl-lgpl.tex +++ b/gpl-lgpl.tex @@ -1631,7 +1631,7 @@ ideas into the tangible medium of electronic file storage. That programmer is indeed the copyright holder of those new changes. However, those changes are part and parcel to the original work distributed to the programmer under GPL\@. Thus, the license of the original work -affects the license of the new whole combined and/or derivative work. +affects the license of the new, whole combined and/or derivative work. % {\cal I} \newcommand{\gplusi}{$\mathcal{G\!\!+\!\!I}$} @@ -1652,7 +1652,7 @@ holder of each of the two works. In this case, GPLv2~\S2 lays out the terms by which \gplusi{} may be distributed and copied. By default, under copyright law, the copyright holder of \worki{} would not have been permitted to distribute \gplusi{}; -copyright law forbids it without the expressed permission of the copyright +copyright law forbids it without the express permission of the copyright holder of \workg{}. (Imagine, for a moment, if \workg{} were a proprietary product --- would its copyright holders give you permission to create and distribute \gplusi{} without paying them a hefty sum?) The license of \workg{}, the @@ -1663,12 +1663,6 @@ of the GPL are upheld, goes far above and beyond the permissions that one would get with a typical work not covered by a copyleft license. Thus, to say that this condition is any way unreasonable is simply ludicrous. -The GPL recognizes what is outside its scope. When a programmer's work is -``separate and independent'' from any GPL'd program code with which it could be -combined, then the obligations of copyleft do not extend to the work -separately distributed. Thus, Far from attempting to extend copyleft beyond the -scope of copyright, the licenses explicitly recognize. - Thus, GPL recognizes what is outside its scope. When a programmer's work is ``separate and independent'' from any GPL'd program code with which it could be combined, then copyleft obligations do not extend to the independent work @@ -1682,9 +1676,9 @@ subroutine ``dynamically'' linked to GPL'd code is, by virtue of the linking alone, inherently outside the scope of copyleft on the main work. This is a misunderstanding. When two software components are joined together to make one work (whether a main and some library subroutines, two objects with their -respective methods, or a program and a ``plugin'') the combination infringes +respective methods, or a program and a ``plugin''), the combination infringes the copyright on the components if the combination required copyright -permission from the component copyright holders, as such permission was +permission from the component's copyright holders, as such permission was either not available or was available on terms that were not observed. In other words, when combining other software with GPL'd components, the only @@ -1752,7 +1746,7 @@ with GPLv2~\S6 (as discussed in Section~\ref{GPLv2s6} of this tutorial). \medskip -The final paragraph of GPLv2~\S2 is worth special mention. It is possible and +The final paragraph of GPLv2~\S2 is worth a special mention. It is possible and quite common to aggregate various software programs together on one distribution medium. Computer manufacturers do this when they ship a pre-installed hard drive, and GNU/Linux distribution vendors do this to